Yes they grade each play, without variables. Flacco in a poorly run offense throwing to Boldin and smith as a top WRs, is being graded equally to Ryan in a better offense throwing to Roddy White, Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez. Thats where the issue lies. Its not a 1 on 1 scenario where you can take this performance against this corner or this defense and call it equal. "Ryan was asked to do more and performed better." Id say due those variables and having two legitimate #1 WRs, prototypical ones, and the GOAT TE that Ryan is actually asked to do a lot less on his own and benefits by them excelling at their positions. while PFFs own analysis claims Boldin does not excel at his, yet is ranked that much higher than the QB that his ability effects. I think theres some hypocrisy there and this "result of the play" isnt taking into account those circumstances. Something eyes can do and stats cannot.

Back to my point "but you can't judge a player on what he wasn't doing, you can only go by what he did." The only way to view Flacco's performance is what he did with the system he was in and the players around him. Saying "If he'd had this OC or this TE..." it's supposition. When you're grading/rating past performance you grade/rate the past performance, not how it would have been different under different circumstances. And it's odd that these players around Ryan make him better, and not that his accuracy and ability also helps those players. It's not the one way street you all seem desperate to make it out to be.

It's entirely possible that Flacco plays better next year under a new OC, but that doesn't change what he actually did on the field last season.

05-09-2013, 07:22 AM

Raven Werewolf

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Well they are entitled to their opinion just as I am entitled to laugh at it. Numbers schumbers. All the man does is win. They can completely take him off the list for all I care long as he keeps taking us deep into January. At least they didn't have Josh Freeman ahead of him again.

05-09-2013, 07:38 AM

wickedsolo

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Yes they grade each play, without variables. Flacco in a poorly run offense throwing to Boldin and smith as a top WRs, is being graded equally to Ryan in a better offense throwing to Roddy White, Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez. Thats where the issue lies. Its not a 1 on 1 scenario where you can take this performance against this corner or this defense and call it equal. "Ryan was asked to do more and performed better." Id say due those variables and having two legitimate #1 WRs, prototypical ones, and the GOAT TE that Ryan is actually asked to do a lot less on his own and benefits by them excelling at their positions. while PFFs own analysis claims Boldin does not excel at his, yet is ranked that much higher than the QB that his ability effects. I think theres some hypocrisy there and this "result of the play" isnt taking into account those circumstances. Something eyes can do and stats cannot.

I agree with you JAB.

Trying to take 1 player's performance and break it down in, essentially, black and white terms just doesn't really tell the whole story.

The concept is interesting, but the results do not always line up with what actually happened.

05-09-2013, 07:46 AM

JAB1985

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Van Cleef

Back to my point "but you can't judge a player on what he wasn't doing, you can only go by what he did." The only way to view Flacco's performance is what he did with the system he was in and the players around him. Saying "If he'd had this OC or this TE..." it's supposition. When you're grading/rating past performance you grade/rate the past performance, not how it would have been different under different circumstances. And it's odd that these players around Ryan make him better, and not that his accuracy and ability also helps those players. It's not the one way street you all seem desperate to make it out to be.

I Think saying the WRs are linked to the result of the play for the QBs success is more of a two way street than saying the QBs stats are this and taking away any effect the WRs had all together. My way is more of a two way street than yours where the QB is responsible good or bad and the WRs arent taken into account at all. The QB ultimately is only there to give their WRs a chance to make a play even the best QB cannot make the throw and catch himself, which ultimately is how theyre being compared. Result of the play not the parameters of that result.

Quote:

It's entirely possible that Flacco plays better next year under a new OC, but that doesn't change what he actually did on the field last season.

Yes, what he did, against different defenses, with different players in a different system. Its trying to make an apples to apples comparison which isnt possible in football. I wont say its useless, its interesting, but I dont thinks its fair and certainly not objective.

05-09-2013, 07:46 AM

TheSpiderWebb

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayc00

I stopped reading when I seen Watt listed above a guy that was 8yds away from breaking E.D.'s rushing record.

Seriously? J.J. Watt had one of the best seasons ever at any position last year.

I have no problem with Joe being 100, but I don't think some of the guys ahead of him belong there, Kaepernick especially

05-09-2013, 08:11 AM

wickedsolo

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpiderWebb

Seriously? J.J. Watt had one of the best seasons ever at any position last year.

I have no problem with Joe being 100, but I don't think some of the guys ahead of him belong there, Kaepernick especially

I actually agree with Jay.

Watt had an outstanding season, but the Texans probably would have been pretty good even without Watt.

The Vikings, however, wouldn't even have been close to sniffing the playoffs without Adrian Peterson playing the way he did.

05-09-2013, 10:23 AM

PerpetuallyBored74

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Any grading or rating system that attempts to evaluate Flacco (or any of our offensive players since 2011) and refuses fails to account for Cam Cameron's all-too-often inexplicable play-calling these past 2 seasons is automatically invalidated.

I mean when's the last time you can recall a QB, WR corp and Head Coach all staring in dumbfounded frustration at their OC during ANY game? Because beginning in 2011, for the Ravens that's precisely what happened about 4 to 5 times for each season (roughly 1/4 of the season).

In 2011: against the Texans, Jaguars and Chargers (also arguably Jets, Seahawks and 2nd Browns game)

In 2012: against the Texans, 2nd Browns game, both Steelers games, the Chargers and the Redskins (You can make an argument for the Eagles loss too).

And yet somehow despite the undeniability of Cam's stubborn incompetence, all these "experts" seemed to gloss over Cam's failings as an OC--some of them even questioned the wisdom of firing Cam when the Ravens were clearly playoff bound, leading the AFC North.

Even after Caldwell turned the season back around, transforming the offense into a scoring machine throughout the playoffs (124 points in 4 games for a 31 point avg) what did many of these experts attribute the Ravens' success in winning the Super Bowl too?

Ray Lewis announcing his retirement.

And now (retroactively because he's no longer a Raven) Boldin's performance and how he "bailed out" Flacco time and time again (he's the real playoff MVP don't you see)

05-09-2013, 10:37 AM

HotInHere

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Yes they grade each play, without variables. Flacco in a poorly run offense throwing to Boldin and smith as a top WRs, is being graded equally to Ryan in a better offense throwing to Roddy White, Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez. Thats where the issue lies. Its not a 1 on 1 scenario where you can take this performance against this corner or this defense and call it equal. "Ryan was asked to do more and performed better." Id say due those variables and having two legitimate #1 WRs, prototypical ones, and the GOAT TE that Ryan is actually asked to do a lot less on his own and benefits by them excelling at their positions. while PFFs own analysis claims Boldin does not excel at his, yet is ranked that much higher than the QB that his ability effects. I think theres some hypocrisy there and this "result of the play" isnt taking into account those circumstances. Something eyes can do and stats cannot.

FWIW it's worth, some not-so-random 2012 team defensive rankings:

#1 - Pittsburgh
#6 - Cincinnati
#23 Cleveland

#10 Carolina
#29 Tampa Bay
#32 New Orleans

05-09-2013, 10:37 AM

psuasskicker

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpiderWebb

Seriously? J.J. Watt had one of the best seasons ever at any position last year.

No he didn't. He had a terrific, deservedly-award-winning season. It was not even close to worthy of GOAT discussion. Ray Lewis in 2000 had a GOAT season. Montana in '84 and Young in '94 had GOAT seasons. Watt's 2013 wasn't a GOAT season.

What Peterson did this past year could most certainly be considered a GOAT season even without considering his coming off a late-season 2012 major knee injury. Throw in the fact he did it off a blown ACL, and it's absolutely incredible. He single-handedly took a team that had no QB and a severe talent deficiency and probably should have been picking top-five two weeks ago, and took them into the playoffs. Peterson shouldn't "probably" be #1 overall on this list, he should be and there's no one else that should be close to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Van Cleef

But, and this gets harped on repeatedly when the PFF debate begins, they aren't doing statistical analysis. They are grading performance on each snap played against a consistent grading format.

I buy that, but as has been discussed ad nauseum here, they just seem to have severe gaps in their methodology. This shows itself if you simply consider the eyeball test. You can certainly make an argument that Flacco should be #100 if you only look at his regular season. He was slightly higher than average at the most important position in the game on a team with a mediocre-to-poor defense, leading his team to the division title.

However, when you know they're considering post-season in this equation, it quite simply makes no sense to put him at #100. Let's forget for a moment that the post-season just by itself represents 20% of the overall games he played this season, which is a pretty major chunk. Post-season performance is significantly more important than regular season performance, and Joe Flacco had one of the greatest post-season performances in the history of the game. Given this, his performance at the position over the entirety of the season + post-season was undoubtedly top ten, and arguably top five.

Having him at #100 just doesn't pass the eyeball test.

- C -

05-09-2013, 03:38 PM

pcook4012

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Yes they grade each play, without variables. Flacco in a poorly run offense throwing to Boldin and smith as a top WRs, is being graded equally to Ryan in a better offense throwing to Roddy White, Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez. Thats where the issue lies. Its not a 1 on 1 scenario where you can take this performance against this corner or this defense and call it equal. "Ryan was asked to do more and performed better." Id say due those variables and having two legitimate #1 WRs, prototypical ones, and the GOAT TE that Ryan is actually asked to do a lot less on his own and benefits by them excelling at their positions. while PFFs own analysis claims Boldin does not excel at his, yet is ranked that much higher than the QB that his ability effects. I think theres some hypocrisy there and this "result of the play" isnt taking into account those circumstances. Something eyes can do and stats cannot.

I 100% agree with this. You can't grade someone efficiently without taking everything into account. Its not like these two sat down and bubbled in some answers on the SAT. Matt Ryan did better than Flacco ON PAPER, but he did it throwing to better talent and weaker defenses. LVC, these things effect performance no matter how you look at it. Does a guy like Matt Ryan throwing to them help their stats? Sure. But having one of the best WR duos in the league sure helped his too. Trying to act like it doesn't is trying to make it into a one way street going the opposite direction. Besides, if its just supposition to say "well Ryan had Jones and White to throw to" than Flacco's grade/ranking shouldn't take a hit because of a handful of clutch catches by Q. That would be PFF taking circumstances surrounding Flacco into account.

To me, it's like saying I'm faster than Usain Bolt because in beat him in 100m running naked and he ran it towing 300 lbs. in 3 feet of snow (although with my whopping 5.5 second 40, he'd probably still win). According to LVC, it doesn't matter what would happen in different circumstances; it's supposition. In all honesty, I could care less about a popularity contest but bottom line, if this list takes playoffs into account, Flacco should be higher than most of the other QBs on it.

05-10-2013, 07:17 AM

Jeremiah W

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I still don't see the reason. If "trashing him" means they say he isn't that good at QB, that isn't relevant to my question/point.

I am asking how/why a site like PFF or ESPN would go out of their way to 'punish' Flacco, specifically, in their rankings. "Because they don't think he is a good QB" begs the question.

I am looking for something along the lines of a) they benefit in some way by doing this, or b) they hold a personal grudge against Flacco for some reason. Maybe one or both of these reasons is the case, but I have my doubts.

Maybe there is even a more subtle third possibility. One where Flacco isn't singled out and punished, but rather, a whole lot of other less-deserving QBs are deemed "trendy" or "popular" or the "latest fad" and these other QBs are given a lot of extra, unearned credit in the subjective measurements, which would have the same effect as punishing Flacco relative to these other rankings.

I guess I could envision this latter possibility being the case. At least in the Kaepernick case mentioned above.

I suppose Flacco will never win over his critics if he has not done it yet. Boldin almost instantly regaining his elite status as soon as he left town is also suspect.

05-10-2013, 07:20 AM

Ravenswintitle

Re: Flacco #100 on PFF's Top 101 of 2012 (and why it's ridiculous)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Excellector

You know Houston!, I was thinking the exact same thing! This is part of the reason why sites like PFF get on my nerves. This isn't baseball and they haven't figured that out yet.

And because it's so opinion based, it gets people clicking and typing, which makes the site $$. Nothing gets more attention than putting some ridiculous opinion list together and watch people rip it apart. It's become the reality show of the web